Theos-Talk Archives (June 1996 Message tt00044)

Rich:

[writing to Jerry H-E]

>>So for a start, I hope to at least reintroduce
>>the idea that ethics is part of Theosophy.

> The very idea that such a position has to be REINTRODUCED speaks
> volumes about the (public) state of Theosophy today. How the
> Masters must our inability to follow simple, clear instructions.

I think that there's a number of reasons why ethics have been
avoided in the past. One is that people have studied some
Eastern thought, with ideas like "rising above a notion of good
and bad", and misunderstood them. Another is individualism
carried too far, where someone does not want anyone telling them
what or how to do things, including any commonly-agreed ethical
rules. Yet a third reason is that ethics takes one from an arid
intellectualism towards a heart-felt religious sense, and some
people resist any movement in this direction.

With ethics, we are dealing with ideas related to *process*,
related to how we live our lives. With the theosophical
doctrines, we are dealing with ideas related to *content*,
related to what we carry insides our minds and hearts. Both are
important. We cannot get by without both Theosophy as *process*
and Theosophy as *content*.

> I agree completely with what Jerry has said about the
> universality of first-generation Theosophical presentations (HPB,
> Judge, the Mahatma Letters, a few others) and the watered-down,
> disfigured nature of "theosophical" productions from the 1910s
> and 1920s.

"Watered down" is ok, like the shoreline to a great ocean, with
depths suitable to students of all backgrounds. What's not ok is
"disfigured", which is something different. When there are major
changes, and those changes are not consistent and clarifying, but
rather are alterations that mislead -- then we have a problem.
How do we know when this is happening? We must become and remain
good students of the source literature, in order to have
something to compare the later writers to.

> When most people today hear the word Theosophy they think Annie
> Besant, Leadbeater and Krishnamurti, auras and chakras and out of
> body journeys. Shirley Maclaine and the "Shirley Maclaine
> Theosophical Society" haven't done much to firm up the public
> image.

It's all a matter of who gets the most public exposure. If we
want a different public image, we need to be better at presenting
our understanding of the philosophy.

> Without ethics, there IS NO THEOSOPHY. It's my personal belief,
> but I feel it is perfectly defensible, that the entire extended
> teachings, philosophy, principles, cosmology, etc. were given
> out as SUPPORTS for the basic teaching of brotherhood in practice
> and the amelioration of suffering, largely caused on this planet
> by selfishness and immorality.

I'd agree that ethics and dedication to the betterment of others
is considerably important. The Bodhisattva Vow is a significant
part of the Path, and is essential for one to move beyond being a
good student of Theosophy, to becoming a good *practioner* of the
philosophy.

I would not, though, put the doctrines in the role of a tool or
support. I would not consider them as secondary, but rather
consider them as of equal stature and also essential in living
the life. It's the combination of (a) what we *are* (related to
the living Wisdom within) and (b) what we *do* (related to the
practice of noble virtues in life) that makes us a genuine
Student.

> Rounds, races, etc, etc, fascinate me, and I find them useful in
> many ways, but I think they form only a philosophical framework
> whose centerpiece is "strenuous self-evolution toward altruism
> for the betterment of the whole." Lose the centerpiece, and the
> framework is, as Jerry says, at best useless and at worst frankly
> dangerous.

Both guidelines for reflection (the doctrines) and guidelines for
living the life (the ethics) are important. Each provides a
supporting framework for the other. Without either one, we
become useless to the world, if not harmful to others.

-- Eldon